This should be kept secret to protect National Security. If enemies of the US saw how ridiculously stupid, ineffective, incompetent, and corrupt these agencies are, they would know they can act without fear of being caught.
So we need to keep these things secret to maintain the illusion that the FBI, CIA, NSA, ICE, DoD, and Secret Service can actually protect the country.
Shame on you, Techdirt for endangering the nation.

There are some executives who continuously ask "how can we make our products better?" Then, there are executives who prefer to ask "how can we make these idiots buy more of our crap?" The former don't work at Sony anymore, or they have been relegated to a seat by the window. The latter have taken over.

The most active area of tech, and the one that sees the fastest growth, is, of course, cloud computing. Cloud service providers, from Google to Amazon and Salesforce.com are extending their offerings to individuals and small businesses. Businesses of all types rely on ubiquitous access to cloud services by their employees on site, on the road, or at home.
Metered broadband is going to throw a nice wrench into these practices and plans. It will be nice to see how the ISPs will behave when they are no longer dictating terms to the captive and powerless audience of private users but have to face powerful industry groups who can throw a lot of money around, lobby the legislators, or even start competing.
Wouldn't it be nice to see the ISPs smacked down hard by bigger bullies?

I heard that some people just robbed a convenience store and drove away in a car. It just shows that nothing good will ever come out of these motorized contraptions. If they had to walk away, they would think twice before robbing a store.

And, by the same logic, the post office should be liable for every ransom note it delivered, any stolen or illegal item it transported, and every letter that was transmitted as part of a scam or swindle.
That should keep them and a few lawyers busy for a while.

To be fair, Mike, most mistakes made by reporters are just that: repeating incorrect claims without checking them. Your attempt at making this look like a lesser error than making a mistake yourself is disingenuous. Repeating without checking is a mistake and you made it yourself.

One thing it does is let everybody know that the sites that still show pictures or video clips of her are indeed trash. So, she probably knows that she cannot erase all copies from the net, but at least she can induce all self respecting publishers to avoid it, and tag all who publish it anyway as the douche bags that they are.

And the democrats are wondering why the enthusiasm that carried the presidential election is no longer there.
On the other hand, the electorate looks like Charlie Brown, who believes that, this time, Lucy will not take away the football.

The web site only publishes reports by other people. The owner of the site cannot check all posts for veracity, that's why they need safe harbor protection. The responsibility for the veracity of a report is with the author, not with the site owner, that's what section 230 is about.

If you are not paying, you are not the customer, you are the product.
Scribd did something stupid and are not helping themselves, not because they are losing a customer, but because they are losing their product.

Starting from the facts we know: A mainframe that could have issued a warning of a potentially dangerous condition that may have caused the accident had been shut down because it was apparently infected with some malware. The means:
1. The IT department shut down a system that may have been critical to the safety of flight operations.
2. Flight operations decided to maintain the flights in spite of the unavailability of an apparently critical safety system.
3. The airline senior management had decided to save the expense of having a backup system for an apparently critical safety function.

So, either that system was critical, and the blame resides (1) with the company executives for operating without proper safety systems in place, (2) with the company IT for not having proper business continuity procedures, (3) the company Network Security for letting the malware in, and (4) with the Pilot In Command who made the decision to take off without having all the information needed (standard FAA language, and I am sure it is the same in other jurisdictions).

Or, possibly, that system was not critical, and the malware is just a convenient scapegoat, with the added benefit of agitating opinion to allow more controls on the internet - which may have absolutely nothing to do with the accident.

Either way, whatever malware may have been there is way down the list of blamees.

I don't agree with the ruling in many ways, but, to be fair, free speech was never about football games. The court did say that this was about commerce, not on the basis of opinion, which means that this case cannot be used as precedent to silence a critic.
And, really, if the press had to spend less time covering pointless sports events, and a little more informing people of things that affect them, we would all be better off.